Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Fishu on April 08, 2006, 08:24:37 AM
-
US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_afp/usirannuclearmilitary_060408061934;_ylt=At5IpADpJkTWXB7BtLtyRseFOrgF)
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.
ADVERTISEMENT
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.
"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.
A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."
The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.
One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.
In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.
One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.
But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.
"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.
The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.
"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.[/b]
-
Wow, such incredible facts from the illustrious Seymour Hersh, published in The New Yorker, that paragon of journalism.
It's a contingency plan. They have them for EVERYTHING. There are entire departments who do nothing but dream up scenarios and formulate contingency plans to respond to them, regardless of how far fetched the scenario actually is.
REAL NEWS there, what a freaking scoop.
-
I think we should at least finish 1 of the 2 wars that we are in now before we embark on another boogey man bash.
-
"investigative journalist Seymour Hersh ","A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser ","One former defense official ".
by george, i think we have solid proof here that hitler..er i mean booosh is going to nuke iran.
-
Everyone who ever served in the military and left it is a "former defense official".
-
"One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out."
Has this EVER worked? :confused:
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I think we should at least finish 1 of the 2 wars that we are in now before we embark on another boogey man bash.
Oh heck, in the case of Iran, one nuke might start and end a war with one quick bomb drop.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out."
Has this EVER worked? :confused:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki so yea I think it will work just dandy.
-
Operation PlowShare comes to mind...:O
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Sedan_Plowshare_Crater.jpg/755px-Sedan_Plowshare_Crater.jpg)
-
Originally posted by fartwinkle
Hiroshima and Nagasaki so yea I think it will work just dandy.
Really? I dont recall the japanese people rising up against the government, not after the 4 year long disaterous war, not after a few good years of conventional fire bombing, not even with threat of imminent invasion, and not even after the two nucler bombs..
Lets see, air attack didnt cause popolar rebellion against any of the following governemts:
British
German
Japanese
North Korean
North Vietnamese
Iraqi
Serbian
Did I miss any? Why do we think it would do so in Iran?
-
April 17th..... ??????????????
top of the article
-
US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran
:cool: cool now the middle east can have a Grand Canyon to:lol
-
I'm not a military stargitist or anything, but I remember history class when my teacher told us that in WW2 Hitler fought too many fronts at one time, If I remember correctly Germany lost WW2, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if we fight too many fronts at one time won't we lose too?
-
Originally posted by dmf
I'm not a military stargitist or anything, but I remember history class when my teacher told us that in WW2 Hitler fought too many fronts at one time, If I remember correctly Germany lost WW2, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if we fight too many fronts at one time won't we lose too?
this is not WW2, you do not fight a new war by the tactics of the last war.
-
Originally posted by dmf
I'm not a military stargitist or anything, but I remember history class when my teacher told us that in WW2 Hitler fought too many fronts at one time, If I remember correctly Germany lost WW2, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if we fight too many fronts at one time won't we lose too?
Originally posted by john9001
this is not WW2, you do not fight a new war by the tactics of the last war.
Seems like you are fighting your new wars with the tactics of the losing pary of the "last war" you won (WWII). This far you don't seem to be any more successful either.
-
Originally posted by Schwein
Seems like you are fighting your new wars with the tactics of the losing pary of the "last war" you won (WWII). This far you don't seem to be any more successful either.
if your are refering only to the U.S. you are wrong there are multiple countries with the U.S. in the Middle East hence the name "Coalition Forces"
-
I didn't specify one way or the other and I fail to see your point?
-
i wonder why nuclear weapons?
use it and others will follow your path...
-
Originally posted by john9001
this is not WW2, you do not fight a new war by the tactics of the last war.
I know this isn't WW2, but some things never change in life, like the fact that if you don't have enough butter, then it won't cover the bread. Same in a war, if you don't have enough troops, you can't cover the world, WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 it wil still be the same fact.
-
Originally posted by john9001
this is not WW2, you do not fight a new war by the tactics of the last war.
Oh and as far a I know we ARE useing WW2 tactics. First we bomb them, then we send in the ground forces, gee, sounds like history class to me.
-
This far you don't seem to be any more successful either.
====
You have so little faith scwhein, perhaps a visit from old uncle sam is in order. What are your GPS coordinates?
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
It's funny most of the planning for 911 happened in the late 1990s, a period when the usa was very active in helping muslims and promting palestenian peace. For example in 1999 the usa used gps bombs to attack christian serbia because they were about to start a genocide of the very muslim albanians.
So maybe the al qaeda want to park planes i buldings for many reasons.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It's funny most of the planning for 911 happened in the late 1990s, a period when the usa was very active in helping muslims and promting palestenian peace. For example in 1999 the usa used gps bombs to attack christian serbia because they were about to start a genocide of the very muslim albanians.
So maybe the al qaeda want to park planes i buldings for many reasons.
It only goes to show that dropping bombs on people does not please anyone. I don’t think “Look Arabs! We bombed the Serbs too! We bomb EVERYBODY!” will help you very much.
-
I'm not a military stargitist or anything, but I remember history class when my teacher told us that in WW2 Hitler fought too many fronts at one time, If I remember correctly Germany lost WW2, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if we fight too many fronts at one time won't we lose too?
That was for germany alone. Contrary to popular belief, Germany WAS NOT a super power. They couldn't project power far away. So fighting in too many places against too many strong foes was bad for them.
On the other hand, Japan was a super power in WW2.
-
Fighting in too many places against too many strong foes is bad for anyone. ;)
-
Originally posted by Schwein
Yes you are good at blowing things up with nothing more to go on than a set of GPS coordinates. And have you seen how much love that has generated for your people? Some people love you so much that they would gladly die to park a few planes in your buildings.
Is it getting cool in here? Maybe it`s just all the shade. :)
We ain`t in it for love hotshot.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Wow, such incredible facts from the illustrious Seymour Hersh, published in The New Yorker, that paragon of journalism.
It's a contingency plan. They have them for EVERYTHING. There are entire departments who do nothing but dream up scenarios and formulate contingency plans to respond to them, regardless of how far fetched the scenario actually is.
REAL NEWS there, what a freaking scoop.
Did you know there was a contingency plan to invade Finland.
-
scwhein...
what are your GPS coordinates?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
i wonder why nuclear weapons?
use it and others will follow your path...
They have been working on bombs for some time which can hit these deeeeep bunkers where the nuke processing is going on...and thus far, the only way to get it done is deep penetration tactical nukes. Or, we can wait a few years, and Iran will undoubtedly have their own nukes. (sell any land you have near Tel Aviv)
-
Cool, get enough nukes launched around the globe and just maybe I will not have to read another post about Ripsnort''s truck causing global warming or how the U.S. is causing global warming, or how evil the U.S. is for allowing people to carry guns, or how bad the U.S. is, in general, or how the people oif the U.S. are all morons, or how the people of the U.S. are idiots. And maybe it will end the arrogance from others as being far superior to anyone from the U.S.
Man o man, what a dream. Let's do it! Heck, the world thinks we are all stupid, so we have an excuse. Blow the poop outta them!
-
to bad J. Carter(?) stopped work on the nuetron bomb
-
screw those towel wearing commie morons. Nuke em until they mutate into 3 eyed fish
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Cool, get enough nukes launched around the globe and just maybe I will not have to read another post about Ripsnort''s truck causing global warming or how the U.S. is causing global warming, or how evil the U.S. is for allowing people to carry guns, or how bad the U.S. is, in general, or how the people oif the U.S. are all morons, or how the people of the U.S. are idiots. And maybe it will end the arrogance from others as being far superior to anyone from the U.S.
Man o man, what a dream. Let's do it! Heck, the world thinks we are all stupid, so we have an excuse. Blow the poop outta them!
SKUZZY/RIPSNORT '08
-
Originally posted by Schwein
It only goes to show that dropping bombs on people does not please anyone. I don’t think “Look Arabs! We bombed the Serbs too! We bomb EVERYBODY!” will help you very much.
Why am I not surprised that somebody with a German name doesnt want the usa to get involved in overseas wars?
-
in WW2 the USA fought wars on two fronts,and did not lose.
-
Originally posted by john9001
in WW2 the USA fought wars on two fronts,and did not lose.
Yeah right, just don't forget the allies who made it much easier.
-
I've read several things by Hersh when, at the time, thought to myself that it was the product of an over-active mind.
But it occurs to me now, he was never wrong. At least I can't think of an instance.
Help me out - when has he been wrong? Article, publisher and date, please.
-
Damn Haji's..........
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Yeah right, just don't forget the allies who made it much easier.
Well, it damn sure wasnt the Finns making it easier. And against Japan we for all practical purposes faught alone. In Europe we did carry a large bit of the fighting.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Cool, get enough nukes launched around the globe and just maybe I will not have to read another post about Ripsnort''s truck causing global warming or how the U.S. is causing global warming, or how evil the U.S. is for allowing people to carry guns, or how bad the U.S. is, in general, or how the people oif the U.S. are all morons, or how the people of the U.S. are idiots. And maybe it will end the arrogance from others as being far superior to anyone from the U.S.
Man o man, what a dream. Let's do it! Heck, the world thinks we are all stupid, so we have an excuse. Blow the poop outta them!
You need a vacation.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why am I not surprised that somebody with a German name doesnt want the usa to get involved in overseas wars?
It's German all right, but it's not a name. ;)
-
what other names have you gone by on this board schwein?
-
None. You?
-
none eh?
give us some background about yourself?
-
Schwein - only promise to do that if Yeager promises to post that goofy pitcure of himself, in his backyard, with his Elvis T-Shirt and a guitar strapped around his neck.
I swear - it's classic.
He's got no business trying to peg you.
-
Well isn't this why we invaded Iraq? To have a base to launch an attack on Iran? Bush had better move quick if he wants to get it done.
That said, if this turns out to be true, we're gonna have a lot of explainin' to do. I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I have to raise the question... Are we really so pompous to believe that Europe will never stand up for what they believe in... And take us on?
You just can't nuke Europe. Need the trade after the war. It'll be a doozy.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Damn Haji's..........
Hehe.
-
He's got no business trying to peg you.
====
eh.....if the guy is fresh then he is fresh...no biggie, but he comes off like he has been around here plenty....way more the 40+ posts.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Cool, get enough nukes launched around the globe and just maybe I will not have to read another post about Ripsnort''s truck causing global warming or how the U.S. is causing global warming, or how evil the U.S. is for allowing people to carry guns, or how bad the U.S. is, in general, or how the people oif the U.S. are all morons, or how the people of the U.S. are idiots. And maybe it will end the arrogance from others as being far superior to anyone from the U.S.
:aok
-
Dago
.Well, it damn sure wasnt the Finns making it easier. And against Japan we for all practical purposes faught alone. In Europe we did carry a large bit of the fighting.
Well thanks for making my grandfather a lier !!!!He fought the Japanese , from the start of world war 2 until the end , to say that America was alone was to say the least a bit pompous!!!!Please dont insult the veterans of many countries who fought the Japanese.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Dago
Well, it damn sure wasnt the Finns making it easier. And against Japan we for all practical purposes faught alone. In Europe we did carry a large bit of the fighting.
In europe waste majority of german military power was fightning against the commies. On the pacific side of the globe japanese and commies had a bitter war prior to our wars and both kept large forces at the border. Japanese troops were also all over China, who had been fightning there for a long time, building up casualties.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Or, we can wait a few years, and Iran will undoubtedly have their own nukes. (sell any land you have near Tel Aviv)
thats the point i dont understand, why do you fear the Iran ?
Shouldn the Iran fear you ? I mean, who is the Superpower at all ?
Who have officialy Nuclear Weapons ? The comparison alone is laughful,
talk about David & Goliath.
-
thats the problem Iran's president is a mad man:t so he is gonna try to start another war even though he doesn't have allies
(http://english.epochtimes.com/news_images/2005-10-26-iran-president-ponder.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
thats the point i dont understand, why do you fear the Iran ?
Shouldn the Iran fear you ? I mean, who is the Superpower at all ?
Who have officialy Nuclear Weapons ? The comparison alone is laughful,
talk about David & Goliath.
Does ANYONE think that if Iran had a nuke, they wouldn't use it?
-
http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html
-
Originally posted by Schwein
See Rule #4
I must have missed the bombing campaign that started before
09/11/2001. Unless you thought we were picking on Saddam's god-given
right to steal other's property. I also wonder what kind of pinhead expects a war to generate any kind of good feeling. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Does ANYONE think that if Iran had a nuke, they wouldn't use it?
they will use it for defense for sure, but its beyound me how someone
can think a 3rd world country will use it as a first strike against
another country, and what then ??? it would be over for them forever,
we know it, and they know it.
How comes all this fear then? its beyond me.
-
Originally posted by mora
http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html
balderdash with a sprinkling of poppycoc*
just another amerihater rant.
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Schwein See Rule #5[/B]
I did
-
See Rule #4
-
I am always amazed at residents of countries that have done nothing positive for anyone else in recent memory, who criticize other nations.
-
Yes, amazing indeed.
-
Originally posted by Schwein
See Rule #5
No, we know why they want to kill us. We represent freedom, both personal and national. We represent an end to their fanatical repression of those they feel are unworthy of life itself, never mind a decent life.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
so he is gonna try to start another war even though he doesn't have allies
(http://)
No allies? Grab a globe and find Russia.
-
See Rule #5
-
I don�t feel comfortable telling you who I am.
====
you have nothing to fear from me. I was just curious about you thats all.
-
well if Iran does try something our missiles will be there in about 2 hours flight time and Iran will be a Nuclear wasteland
-
I wonder how russia would feel about all that fallout polluting thier land for centurys to come?
-
they didn't hate you back in the days of WWII and before.
====
Crusades. Muslims have hated Christians for over 1000 years.
Why is it that they didn't try to kill you back then?
====
Lots of killing "back then" and it wasnt americans doing the killing and getting killed but their european forefathers.
I think it must be something that happened in the 50s and later.
Perhaps something about creating a Jewish state in their midst
====
Outside of the jews retaking what was theirs to begin with, The UN played the greatest role in allowing the creation of Israel in 1947. To slag it off on the US as a problem that just recently started conveys a completely simplistic and dangerous ignorance.
destroying a democratic Iran and
====
this one deserves more asttention....I am aware of some accustations about the CIA....will need to study up on this, but chances are this idea that the US destroyed a peaceful and propserous democracy in Iran for its own use just reeks of antagonistic leftist anti americanism. Will study it though...have any links?
supporting mad dictators.
====
Who are you talking about here? The Shah? Mubarrak? Sadat?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I wonder how russia would feel about all that fallout polluting thier land for centurys to come?
They should think real damned hard about how they'd feel BEFORE they go supplying a radical regime like Iran with military technology. But it is kind of late now, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I think it must be something that happened in the 50s and later.
Perhaps something about creating a Jewish state in their midst
====
Outside of the jews retaking what was theirs to begin with, The UN played the greatest role in allowing the creation of Israel in 1947. To slag it off on the US as a problem that just recently started conveys a completely simplistic and dangerous ignorance.
I agree with pretty much what you said here except for this. I just think saying Israel was the Jews' to begin with sets a little dangerous precedent - and I'm not even sure it's technically correct. Also I'd say that if Israel was never created we'd have a lot fewer problems in the region today. But, too late for that, so what now?
-
The USA wasnt Israels primary backer until the 1970s.
-
And only then to counter the USSR backing of the arab states fighting against the jews...
I just say jews whenever I need to spell israel. I always wonder if Im spelling that correctly is it isreal israil...noooo its Israel....so I just say jew
in my opinion jews are just christians that dont know it yet.
-
anyone else notice that the lefties seem to be glossing up Iran just to oppose anything Bush? I keep hearing the comparisons that this is Iraq circa early 2003 all over again and this is much ado about nothing....
-
wow. lol
-
Originally posted by Yeager
destroying a democratic Iran and
====
this one deserves more asttention....I am aware of some accustations about the CIA....will need to study up on this, but chances are this idea that the US destroyed a peaceful and propserous democracy in Iran for its own use just reeks of antagonistic leftist anti americanism. Will study it though...have any links?
supporting mad dictators.
====
Who are you talking about here? The Shah? Mubarrak? Sadat?
You could do a simple google search for "why muslims hate america" and read those articles written my Muslims. However I would suggest reading Karen Armstrong's "Battle for God". The book details the history of fundamentalist movements in the three monotheistic religions, and goes a long way toward explaining why the Muslims went from admiring America to hating it in the span of a short few years.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679435972/103-6411383-6759016?v=glance&n=283155
-
The german guy tells us:
Evil Jews caused all these problems.
Stupid USA cowboys should not get involved in overses wars.
Check, par for the course.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
And only then to counter the USSR backing of the arab states fighting against the jews...
I just say jews whenever I need to spell israel. I always wonder if Im spelling that correctly is it isreal israil...noooo its Israel....so I just say jew
in my opinion jews are just christians that dont know it yet.
Not really the Soviets. The Israelis had to find other backers because the Brits and French backed off their support in the 1970s due to arab pressure. This is most easily evidenced in the composition of Israeli military equipment before and after the 1970s. Pre 1970 heavily French/British, post 1970s heavily USA.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The german guy tells us:
Evil Jews caused all these problems.
Stupid USA cowboys should not get involved in overses wars.
Check, par for the course.
That would be you saying that, and you alone.
-
(http://www.stickfight.net/images/avatars/PitoFace-ugly.gif)
-
I think we should pull all our troops out of Iraq, Concentrate on findeing Osama Bin Laded, and just nuke Iran so that madman will shut up. Not a big 15 megaton or anything, just a small one like they used on Japan in WW2, or 2 or 3 of them.
-
Originally posted by Schwein
Yes that must be it. The Muslims have always hated you for your freedom... no wait, they didn't hate you back in the days of WWII and before. Why is it that they didn't try to kill you back then? I think it must be something that happened in the 50s and later. Perhaps something about creating a Jewish state in their midst and destroying a democratic Iran and supporting mad dictators... no, can't be that simple can it? No, they must hate you for your freedom. Yeah that must be it.
Must be another schwein...
-
Originally posted by Schwein
It only goes to show that dropping bombs on people does not please anyone. I don’t think “Look Arabs! We bombed the Serbs too! We bomb EVERYBODY!” will help you very much.
Another schwein must have posted this too.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Another schwein must have posted this too.
No, but only GRUNHERZ posted this:
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Evil Jews caused all these problems.
Stupid USA cowboys should not get involved in overses wars.
There are no similarities to my post, and if you see any then they are only in your head.
-
Your message is clear, you blame these Muslim problems on Jewish people and US involvent in overseas conflicts.
-
like I said:D
(http://www.stickfight.net/images/avatars/PitoFace-ugly.gif)
-
Here you go German guy, here come the evil USA guys bombing your country. :)
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/t_images/b17formation.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Your message is clear, you blame these Muslim problems on Jewish people and US involvent in overseas conflicts.
No, The MUSLIMS do. I thought I made that clear. Now stop putting words in my mouth.
-
So which shade account are you?
-
Come again?
-
No sweat. Where in germany do you live?
-
You’re the second guy asking for my “credentials” today alone. What’s up with that?
Or are you just trolling me?
-
I donno, your guess is as good as mine. :aok
-
tell me where you live
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/predator-7.jpg) :lol
-
And what? You'll take my picture? ;)
-
use a tactical nuke to stop another country to obtain nuclear weapons???
If that happened you may as well tear up the non-proliferation treaty because it would legitimise the use of tactical nuclear weapons and every swinging dick in the congo will want to get them and have a "reasonable" exscuse as well....
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
use a tactical nuke to stop another country to obtain nuclear weapons???
If that happened you may as well tear up the non-proliferation treaty because it would legitimise the use of tactical nuclear weapons and every swinging dick in the congo will want to get them and have a "reasonable" exscuse as well....
Agreed.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
use a tactical nuke to stop another country to obtain nuclear weapons???
If that happened you may as well tear up the non-proliferation treaty because it would legitimise the use of tactical nuclear weapons and every swinging dick in the congo will want to get them and have a "reasonable" exscuse as well....
Well using that nuke WOULD reduce the number of weapons...........by one. So I guess it complies with non proliferation.....
:p
-
Call PETA and tell them that they are testing chemical weapons on animals and also using animals to test other weapons in iran. Maybe we will get lucky and they will wipe each other out
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
they will use it for defense for sure, but its beyound me how someone
can think a 3rd world country will use it as a first strike against
another country, and what then ??? it would be over for them forever,
we know it, and they know it.
How comes all this fear then? its beyond me.
you don't think an Iranian nuke would have a "made in Iran" sticker on it for all to see and point their finger at the cheekboness do you? ... more like our morning news will just go off the air when the suitcase bomb Iran hands the terrorist to do their dirty work detonates during rush hour in downtown Manhattan... then the hand wringers will all cry, why didn't we do something more to prevent this? Time for another Congressional investigation....
Next week, next month, next year ... if you let the iranian cheekboness have their way .. it will happen
And though Israel is worried they would attack them, it would be easier and they'd stand a better chance of getting away with it, if they attack the US instead..we have more hand wringers here..
-
Eagler, you do realise that all fissionable material can be traced back to source very easily? It might as well have 'Made in Iran' on it. Atomic forensics is a very advanced science and there is an international body that specialises in just such a task.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Eagler, you do realise that all fissionable material can be traced back to source very easily? It might as well have 'Made in Iran' on it. Atomic forensics is a very advanced science and there is an international body that specialises in just such a task.
yeah, I saw Sum of All Fears .. Ben Aflack did it in under 15 minutes after crawling out of a helicopter crash didn't he? :)
I do not want to have to track anything back as I do not want to have it happen in the first place ...
-
I agree. But I think we are in 'Ben Afleck saves the world' Hollywood land if we think Iran can develop the technology to build a bomb, design a method of reliable deployment and then smuggle it around half the world inside something the size of a suitcase. ;)
While suicide may be purported as a noble endeavour by Islamic extremists, the upper echelons of the extremist government in Tehran prefer to sit around drinking tea and delegate. I should think a nuke in New York might compromise that.
For me, diplomacy looks like a better option.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Schwein
And what? You'll take my picture? ;)
do you not see the hellfire miissile on the wing???:confused:
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I agree. But I think we are in 'Ben Afleck saves the world' Hollywood land if we think Iran can develop the technology to build a bomb, design a method of reliable deployment and then smuggle it around half the world inside something the size of a suitcase. ;)
While suicide may be purported as a noble endeavour by Islamic extremists, the upper echelons of the extremist government in Tehran prefer to sit around drinking tea and delegate. I should think a nuke in New York might compromise that.
For me, diplomacy looks like a better option.
Disregarding the suitcase limitations, the delivery of a nuclear device to a target in the US is certainly feasable. It doesn't even have to be a suicide delivery. It's called container shipping. Given that an estimated 5% of containers are inspected that leaves a 95% chance it wouldn't be detected. Even if it were detected it would still be a significant threat to any harbor where the device had been found.
A single container with a nuclear device loaded on a ship and sent to a major harbor would be a devastating impact on shipping not to mention the extreme amount of contamination from the remains of the ship, containers and harbor being blown into the atmosphere at the point of detonation.
Yep you "might" be able to trace the fissionable materials but the damage would already have been done.
-
Yeah, tracing it after the fact doesn't revive the dead or heal the maimed.
Iran is a rogue state. It isn't the general population, it's the fact that at any time a nutjob can gain power there, even if only for a short period of time. One nutjob who doesn't care whether he lives or dies with access to nuclear weapons is all it takes. And once he does it, it's done. I wonder why that is so hard to understand for some people.
-
Dowding, how much will it matter to you if a rogue state supplies a nuclear device that is exploded wiping out a city on your country, or worse yet, some of your family, if the material is traceable? Exactly what difference will the material being traceable make?
Further, it is only traceable IF you have access to and knowledge of some of the material it originated from. If a rogue state had it to begin with, and you don't know how/where they got it, how are you going to trace it? And if those who possessed and supllied it don't care if you know or not, what difference will it make?
The dead will arleadey be dead, the maimed will already be maimed, and the area will already be destroyed. Tracing the origins of the materials used to do it will not change the state of the persons and places already damaged or destroyed. It will still remain the same.
-
Hey Virgil,
Kind of like tangible evidence that Iraq could launch WMD's within 30-45 minutes.
That kind of thinking?
Absolutely, invade, nuke, bomb, whatever, Iran on your suspision or your what-if scenerio...it worked to get us into Iraq.
I have no problem taking action, IF we have absolute proof of existence and intention.
Those two things were missing in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Hey Virgil,
Kind of like tangible evidence that Iraq could launch WMD's within 30-45 minutes.
That kind of thinking?
Absolutely, invade, nuke, bomb, whatever, Iran on your suspision or your what-if scenerio...it worked to get us into Iraq.
I have no problem taking action, IF we have absolute proof of existence and intention.
Those two things were missing in Iraq.
Using your own specifications, absolute proof of existance AND intentions will only be known after the mushroom cloud had appeared. A bit late then don't you think.
-
The concept of 'pre-emptive invasion and occupation' has been pretty well proven to be untenable.
Leaves us with doing nothing or cutting off the head of the snake.
Cutting off the head of the snake will incense the Islamic movement.
Doing nothing hands the 'action' ball to Israel.
Match, game; set.
-
You are missing the point. The Iranian leadership will have already considered the implications of being involved in any nuclear attack. It will result in assured destruction through massive retaliatory nuclear strike. I will repeat what I said above - the extremist leadership of Iran delegates the suicide mantra. You only have to look at groups such as Hamas to see how the delegation is done. Why would they want to utterly destroyed themselves?
Further, it is only traceable IF you have access to and knowledge of some of the material it originated from.
Virgil - you're simply wrong about the traceability of nuclear weapons. Do some reading up. Any radioactive substance can be traced, not only through the isotopic fingerprint, but through applying conventional forensic science.
FSC scientists have learned that analyzing the materials accompanying a radioactive sample is as important as characterizing the sample. These so-called route materials—such as containers, fingerprints, fibers, and pollen—provide attribution details about who has handled a sample or the path it has traveled. In the Bulgarian seizure, for example, Livermore scientists used FTIR to confirm that the yellow wax was paraffin. XRF results indicated the yellow coloring was barium chromate, an additive rarely used in Western countries because of environmental concerns but commonly used in Brazil, China, India, and Eastern Europe. Optical microscopy of the paper surrounding the ampoule and the label on the container showed that both of these were a mixture of hardwood and softwood tree fibers commonly found in Eastern Europe.
Source (http://www.llnl.gov/str/March05/Hutcheon.html)
-
I don't Mav, we spent ALOT of resources during the cold war accessing existence AND INTENTIONS. I believe Toad may have even been a cog in that wheel at one point.
How is now any different?
So Mav, are you suggesting we nuke them now, and if not now, when exactly?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Why would they want to utterly destroyed themselves?
The western mind still can't come to grips with the 'kamakazi' mentality.. yours is no exception, apparently.
-
Emperor Hirohito didn't fall on his sword or throw himself from a cliff. You don't understand the kamikaze concept either, apparently.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
So Mav, are you suggesting we nuke them now, and if not now, when exactly?
I'd answer 'Yes, do it NOW'. Playing 'Whack a Mole' in the ungoverned territory of Pakistan with Tac Nukes is a good start. Then tell Iran that every government building associated with Nuclear Power will be a smoking 1/4 mile wide glass sheet inside 72 hours if they don't fold the program and allow IEC inspection immediately.
Screw world opinion. Time to get ugly with Islamic Fundamentalist Regimes is past due.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Emperor Hirohito didn't fall on his sword or throw himself from a cliff. You don't understand the kamikaze concept either, apparently.
And the fact he wasn't deposed by Coup in the final hours before the surrender was a very close run thing.
Islamic Jihad is all about dying for God, taking as many infidels with 'em as possible. Smarten up, Dowding.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I don't Mav, we spent ALOT of resources during the cold war accessing existence AND INTENTIONS. I believe Toad may have even been a cog in that wheel at one point.
How is now any different?
So Mav, are you suggesting we nuke them now, and if not now, when exactly?
First off I did not say we should do any particular action what so ever. I just pointed out that your proposal eliminated any response until after the attack has been carried out. Mere reaction is always taken from a position of loss in the first stages of any conflict. If you are comfortable with that position that is one thing. I hope you and your family are not in the impact zone when the first attack is made.
The ONLY way to be certain of intentions is to wait for the event to occur. Until then it is always an assumption on the part of the one waiting for the intention to be solidified. Insisting on absolute proof of intention is a strategy of inertia. Intelligence operations are never a case of surety until they are already history.
-
FSC scientists have learned that analyzing the materials accompanying a radioactive sample is as important as characterizing the sample. These so-called route materials—such as containers, fingerprints, fibers, and pollen—provide attribution details about who has handled a sample or the path it has traveled. In the Bulgarian seizure, for example, Livermore scientists used FTIR to confirm that the yellow wax was paraffin. XRF results indicated the yellow coloring was barium chromate, an additive rarely used in Western countries because of environmental concerns but commonly used in Brazil, China, India, and Eastern Europe. Optical microscopy of the paper surrounding the ampoule and the label on the container showed that both of these were a mixture of hardwood and softwood tree fibers commonly found in Eastern Europe.
Just curious.....how is this done after the radioactive material has been blown to smithereens?
-
how many nukes fired at the same time does it take to destroy the planet???:confused:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
First off I did not say we should do any particular action what so ever. I just pointed out that your proposal eliminated any response until after the attack has been carried out. Mere reaction is always taken from a position of loss in the first stages of any conflict. If you are comfortable with that position that is one thing. I hope you and your family are not in the impact zone when the first attack is made.
The ONLY way to be certain of intentions is to wait for the event to occur. Until then it is always an assumption on the part of the one waiting for the intention to be solidified. Insisting on absolute proof of intention is a strategy of inertia. Intelligence operations are never a case of surety until they are already history.
I know you haven't say anything, hence my direct question to you, which you didn't answer.....What do YOU recommend we do to insure our safety from Iran?
I don't need you to recap my position for me....I'm the one that stated it, remember? Instead of picking apart my stance, tell me yours.
And I've already stated want I can live with....and yes pre-emptive action is an option for me, but we'd better have good intelligence, and quite frankly, with the money we spend on National Security, Homeland Security, Defense, Intelligence Agencies, we should have better than we are getting.
After the fact is not the only way to be sure....Intelligence, human and otherwise can give us a very good read on the situation....you seem to discount that...I can understand why, given the Admin's current use of questionable intelligence.
It used to be, we had a pretty darn good pulse on existence and intentions, I'd like us to get back to that.
-
Originally posted by john9001
this is not WW2, you do not fight a new war by the tactics of the last war.
history suck......
-
Emperor Hirohito didn't fall on his sword or throw himself from a cliff. You don't understand the kamikaze concept either, apparently.
Dowding, just stop talking, you're embarassing yourself.
You won't understand this concept until you understand why any Japanese pre-hiro-naga would kill himself when the emperor asked him or her to.
You understand this, and you'll understand the islamic movement also.
-
I just thought of something....
The ironic part in all of this, is in the old days, we would have used Saddam to counter-act Iran.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Using your own specifications, absolute proof of existance AND intentions will only be known after the mushroom cloud had appeared. A bit late then don't you think.
Actually, I just re-read this....my specifications do not state this at all. It is possible to have proof of existance and determine intentions before, not after. Isn't this EXACTLY what Bush did?
Doesn't one of our Intelligence Agencies actually have a bureau to do just that....determine intentions?
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I have no problem taking action, IF we have absolute proof of existence and intention.
Stringer,
This is the only part of the post I was attempting to get clarified. You specified absolute proof of both existance AND intentions.
Please define what constitutes ABSOLUTE PROOF of intention.
It is my contention, depending on what you specify constitutes absolute proof of intention, that the only absolute proof is after the weapon is detonated in the case of an attack with a nuclear weapon. In that case it isn't an exercise in intelligence gathering, it's simply a historical data gathering process.
I don't think there will ever be absolute proof of intention before some kind of action has to be taken. You seem to think there is so tell me what it is.
-
Mav,
How about you just answer my damn question! What do YOU recommend we do with regards to Iran and this nuclear issue? Come on..it's not hard to verbalize your stance on this. Unless you don't have one. If so, just say it, and stop nitpicking mine :)
You keep wanting to pick apart my stance... Let me clarify my intention statement.....Better proof of intentions (hell existence for that matter) than we had with Iraq....that should help. And you damn well know we are capable of better Intelligence than was shown for Iraq.
Now, stop dancing on the head of my pin and state your position please :)
-
And you damn well know we are capable of better Intelligence than was shown for Iraq.
A big part of the problem with the intel for Iraq was the different intel services werent sharing information like they should have been. To much rivalry garbage between them imo. That has been addressed by the Bush administration.
I dont get why they werent sharing info in the first place. They are all on the same team last time I checked.
-
Stringer,
I'll have no problem answering the question you asked me once you answer the one I asked you first.
To make it still fresh, what will fit the definition of absolute proof of existance and intent?
-
Fine Mav,
You don't want to answer....I won't play your game. I stated my position, you choose not to state yours.
You don't need clarification on my stance to put yours out there and you know that.
Oh, and to make it fresh....just pony up, and then we can both play the what the definetion of "is" is.... Right now, it's a little one-sided...of course only one person in this dialogue has actually given a stance, and it ain't you.
Have a nice day.
-
Stringer,
If you can't answer the question just say so, don't try and push it off on me. All I asked was for you to explain what your position statement meant. Instead you try and make it my fault that the "conversation is over".
You stated the premise that would be needed for action, absolute proof of existance and intent. I wanted to know what absolute proof of intent would be. I told you already that I felt absolute proof of intent would only be known after the fact.
If you are going to be upset about it that's not my fault and your choice.
Personally I don't have a "preference" for an action to take. I think, and I'm being pessimistic I know, that some action will have to be taken before they have the oportunity to fabricate a weapon. I have serious doubts that there is a purely "political" solution to it. Frankly I am not sure there is really any "good" way to take care of it given the Iranian president's stated position. If they would have an accident in the refining plant or a small reaction in the assembly plant it might make an impression. Don't assume I am calling for an outside source to provide the accident, I'm not. That is just about the only way I think they will back off on their own.
-
Mav,
I'm not upset at all. Just curious as to why you refuse to add your stance to the dialogue.
Put forth your stance, and I'll continue the discussion on mine....damn simple. Why refuse to do that?
I can answer, but I'll quote you here:
I'll have no problem answering the question you asked me once you answer the one I asked you first.
So, bring something to the table, then we can continue.
-
There's never going to be "absolute" proof of intention until the big bang.
-
OK, Toad....fair enough.....what's your stance, and yes I am sincere in that request, just as I am with wanting to know Mav's stance.
-
You won't believe this, probably.
I say "fugeddaboudit".
This world is overdue to experience the horrors of a massive nuclear exchange.
There is NO proof that will be accepted WRT Iran's capabilities or intentions that will generate a true multinational coalition to smack them down. None. Ain't gonna happen.
So, they'll get their nukes. I suspect eventually the more radical elements of Islam will be supplied with them by Iran for some "good reason".
Then a major city or six in the US, perhaps Israel or maybe even "cartoon headquarters" in Denmark will get the big bang.
Which will start a global conflagration that will cure any surviving humans of any sort of tolerance.
Ragnarok. Armageddon. Whatever you wish to call it.
We actually learned nothing from WW2, I think. Which isn't suprising, I guess, as we learned nothing from WW1 either. ;)
-
Can Canada have nukes?
-
Thanks Toad.
On one hand, I can understand that position and agree with it. I do agree that a true multi-national coalition won't be formed.
I guess though, that I'm of the mind that we should try to contain or stop it.
Now, I'm not for the pre-emptive thing, unless, we have absolute proof of capability (or existence) and we have credible (this time it actually means credible, not that trumped up stuff for Iraq) idea of intentions. That second part is damned difficult to assess, I know. But we'd better figure out a way to get close to that if we choose to light a nuke off first.
The proof of capability or existence should be achievable though.
The nuke em now bravado, is just that...bravado, IMO.
-
Sure, why not.
When they start flying, everyone will want to play.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I guess though, that I'm of the mind that we should try to contain or stop it.
There's simply no way.
Sanctions will be ignored, just like they were in Iraq.
Military force is out of the question; no coalition and the US "two major wars at the same time" has been shown to be the strawman I suspected it was 30 years ago.
You have any ideas on containment or stopping it? I surely don't.
-
No, I don't Toad. Not off the top of my head.
Do you think we've got some folks in DC that would have some thoughts on that?
-
I think there's folks in DC that are busily planning military options of all sorts, including secret deals with Israel.
For Contingencies, of course.
I doubt there's anyone in DC that really believes there is any sort of "diplomatic" solution that will work.
I doubt there's anyone in UN HQ that really believes there is any sort of "diplomatic" solution that will work.
I doubt there's anyone in the major Euro governments that really believes there is any sort of "diplomatic" solution that will work.
So, as usual, when the diplomats fail the military prepares.
As I said though, I doubt there's a US Prez with the hair to act unilaterally against them. I don't think Bush will do it and I don't think whoever runs and wins the next one will do it either.
The plans will exist though; for the day when their "intentions" are made irrevocably clear. On that day, "mercy" won't even have a definition.
-
For some reason, this reminds me of a classmate of mine back in grade 9 who just up and quit school one day. It was during the hysteria of Reagan and that movie 'The Day After' and all the shenanigans with Breshnev. His reason? "We're all gonna die anyway." (He wasn't screwin' around either... he never came back).
Believe it or not.... the thought of lobbin' nukes at other countries used to be a pretty big deal. I've even heard that they used to make kids crawl under their desks just to gear up for that eventuality. There was even some kafuffle off of the coast of Cuba once that whigged everyone out, if you can believe that.
But this isn't then. And I wish the panic-artists would just settle down.
Bush and Rumsfeld took questions from the press today, and their answers should put everyone at ease:
Q Sir, after you've studied today the military capabilities of the United States and looking ahead to future threats, one thing that has to factor in is the growing number of U.S. allies, Russia, Germany, Bahrain, now Canada, who say that if you go to war with Iran, you're going to go alone. Does the American military have the capability to prosecute this war alone?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, if you're asking -- are you asking about Iran? The subject didn't come up in this meeting. But, having said that, we take all threats seriously and we will continue to consult with our friends and allies. I know there is this kind of intense speculation that seems to be going on, a kind of a -- I don't know how you would describe it. It's kind of a churning --
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Frenzy.
THE PRESIDENT: Frenzy is how the Secretary would describe it. But the subject didn't come up. We will obviously continue to consult with our friends and allies. Your question makes certain assumptions that may or may not be true. But we will continue to talk with our -- with the people concerned about peace and how to secure the peace, and those are needed consultations. Not only will we consult with friends and allies, we'll consult with members of Congress. Yes, Terry.
Q He has said that he is drawing up war plans to provide you with credible options. Now, should the American people conclude from that that you're reaching some critical point, that a decision is imminent?
THE PRESIDENT: ... one of the jobs that the Secretary of Defense has tasked to members of his general staff is to prepare for all contingencies, whether it be in the particular country that you seem to be riveted on, or any other country, for that matter. We face a -- the world is not stable. The world changes. There are -- this terrorist network is global in nature and they may strike anywhere. And, therefore, we've got to be prepared to use our military and all the other assets at our disposal in a way to keep the peace.
Well, okay, that might be a bit misleading. This actually took place in August 2002, and the country they were referring to was Iraq.
Oh! Snap! How country porch apple pie it would be to be able to believe something, anything these days!
Personally, I don't know about all this. One thing I'm pretty sure of, though, is that it's a bad idea for countries to have nukes, if their leaders show a tendency towards pre-emptive strikes.
-
What we learned from World War II is that never again will there be conventional warfare on that scale. The first combatant that sees they are losing beyond reversal will use nuclear weapons. And for SANE people, full scale nuclear warfare is too horrible to contemplate. So it just eliminated conventional world wars, as the countries CAPABLE of it had more sense than to start it because the end reult would be nuclear.
But that does NOT apply to rogue states because it is easy for an insane person to gain power, because extremist beliefs foster and in fact prefer leadership by that sort of person. Further, in the radical extremist view, a nuclear holocaust that rids the world of a large number of infidels, even at great cost to the extremists, is entirely acceptable, and even desireable. That does not mean, for example, that the general population of Iran is willing to do this. But rather that a small group that holds, or in the future gains, power, will be willing to do it.
Look at it like this. Just a day or two ago in Iraq, one or two radical Muslims of one faction or another was/were willing to die in order to kill 80-100 other Muslims. Is it such a stretch that 100-200 radical Muslims would be willing to die in order to kill 2-10 MILLION infidels and destroy a city or region? I don't think so. And further, I do not think it is at all a stretch to think that a rogue state with the wrong leadership will supply them with materials and money. Look, Saddam Hussien said on international satellite television that he'd pay $25K U.S. to the family of any Muslim who would die as a homicide bomber. And he did.
If you think about it, the two bombs dropped on Japan 51 years ago were by today's standards VERY crude. All of the technology is readily available. The basic workings of the bombs is widely published. Computer programs to design conventional explosives packages on order to make a crude nuclear device exist, and can be had. If you have a group leading a country that is willing to supply the nuclear materials and some money, all you need is enough people willing to die to make it happen. The big problems to making the things are doing it safely, not just doing it. If you aren't worried about the people building the bomb, transporting the bomb, or transporting the materials to make the bomb, dying, then you eliminate a lot of the problems and roadblocks. So you take about 150 willing to die of the radiation effects and let them gather the materials and build the bomb, while the guys who know how to do it advise from a safe distance. When you get it built, you let those dying of radioactive poisoning go and homicide bomb a target with conventional explosives, thus silencing them and making them heroes twice. You take the rest and use them to transport and deliver the bomb. Then you STILL have the guys who supplied the know how around to do it again. Far fetched? Not if you consider the willingness of radicals to die, and the evidently never ending supply of those radicals. And they kill their own. NEVER forget that, because it means they are willing to kill their own, even on a large scale, if they think the payoff in dead infidels is big enough.
When it happens, and it likely will if nothing changes, it will be too late for the thousands at best, more likely tens of thousands, and maybe millions or more, that die or are maimed.
Am I Hell bent on using nuclear weapons or invading? Not by any stretch. I have dear friends and family who would be going in harm's way. But neither am I foolish enough to be willing to sit and wait.
-
Years ago while a freshman in college years ago, I did a background study on the medical impact of a single nuclear detonation. Some of the data is out of date, particularly when it comes to the MX which was retired for the Minuteman III in recent years. The model which is referred to was a damage diorama. I'll place a link in its place. http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367
The report follows:
“A very large nuclear war would be a calamity of indescribable proportions and absolutely unpredictable consequences, with the uncertainties tending toward the worse…All-out nuclear war would mean the destruction of contemporary civilization, throw man back centuries, cause the deaths of hundreds of millions or billions of people, and, with a certain degree of probability, would cause man to be destroyed as a biological species…
Andrei Sakharov
Foreign Affairs, Summer 1983
Prologue:
Apocalyptic predictions require, to be taken seriously, higher standards of evidence then do assertions on other matters where the stakes are not as great. Since the immediate effects of even a single thermonuclear weapon explosion are so devastating, it is natural to assume –even without considering detailed mechanisms—that the more or less simultaneous explosion of ten thousand such weapons all over the Northern Hemisphere might have unpredictable and catastrophic consequences.
A typical thermonuclear warhead of today has a yield of approximately 500 Kilotons (or .5 megatons, a megaton being the explosive equivalent of a million tons of Tri-Nitro-Toluene; AKA, TNT). There are many weapons in the 9 to 20 megaton range in the strategic arsenals of the United States and former Soviet Union: the largest weapon ever having been detonated 58 Megatons.
Strategic thermonuclear weapons are designed to be delivered by ground-based or a submarine missile launching platform. The other method of delivery is by air breathing bombers to attack the enemy homeland directly. Many weapons with yields in the 10-20 Kiloton range (Roughly the size of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations) are assigned to “tactical” or “theater” weapons systems. Such systems are nuclear tipped Surface to Air Missiles (SAM’s – Nike Hercules) and Air to Air Missiles (AAM’s – AIM-23 Falcon) designed to be used against bomber formations, Antisubmarine Nuclear Torpedoes, Depth Charges (ASROC – Anti Submarine Rocket System) and artillery. It has been said that strategic warheads are often larger then their tactical counterparts…this isn’t always the case. IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) such as the Perishing II and Russian SS-20 have sufficient range to blur the distinction between “Strategic” and “Tactical” weapons systems. Both classes of warhead are fully capable of being delivered via either land based ICBM’s (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile), SLBM’s (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile’s), and aircraft; as well as IRBM classes of missile. Nevertheless, there are around 18,000 Strategic Thermonuclear weapons and the equivalent of fission triggers in the United States and former Soviet Republics, with an amassed yield of approximately 10,000 megatons.
No one knows how many warheads would fall in a nuclear conflict. It seems plausible that even a “small” nuclear war would become impossible to contain before it spread to other countries of the nuclear club.
The adversary’s airfields, missile silos, naval bases, submarines at sea, weapons manufacturing and storage depot’s, civilian and military command and control centers, early warning facilities are the most probable targets.
While it’s often stated that cities are not targeted, many of the above targets are located around major population centers. Modern military war doctrine says that “war supporting” facilities are targeted. This includes the enemy’s power grid – transportation hubs, raw materials production facilities, roads, canals, railways, oil refineries, and radio and television transmitters.
With the introduction concluded, this project will focus on the immediate and delayed effects of a 1-Megaton thermonuclear detonation against a major population center.
Prelude to apocalypse:
Any attempt to describe and measure the medical effects – the human death and injury-caused by even a single moderately large nuclear warhead over a United States City creates a paradox. On one hand, the nature and magnitude of the impact are within reasonable limits of precision allowed by the physics of the explosion. On the other hand, despite this apparent specificity, the consequences are unfathomable, for we are attempting to describe and understand an event that is without precedent in human experience.
Let’s make this very clear: Hiroshima and Nagasaki will not serve as precedents. The weapons used on those cities were much smaller then the nuclear weapons of today. Describing the effects of a single megaton explosion requires us to try and imagine 80 Hiroshima explosions at the same instant in one place.
Since modern MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle) warheads produce less energy or what’s referred to as “Overkill” near a single ground zero, the death and destruction produced by one MX missile, carrying a total of Six Megatons in Ten warheads – would equal the effect of a single 20-megaton weapon, or 1,600 Hiroshima detonations.
The Fireball:
At the moment of detonation, all of the energy of the nuclear explosion is condensed in a small superheated sphere of nuclear debris – at temperatures and pressures not unlike the core of the sun. It only takes less then 1/1000th of a second for this fireball to cool to 300,000 º Centigrade. The energy of the explosion, which is largely in the form of X-rays, transforms first into a brilliant flash of light – and then a pulse of thermal radiation that sets fires for miles around the hypocenter. In the case of an airburst over a city – the radioactive components of the bomb would rise with the formation of the fireball, high into the stratosphere. This causes other problems with long living radioactive fallout – which will be dealt with later in this project.
In this case – the fireball from a one-megaton explosion grows to more then a mile in diameter in seconds, while forming a mushroom cloud over ten miles across punching through the atmosphere up to 70,000 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level). I briefed you earlier on the term “megaton”, or the equivalent of one million tons of TNT. For another numerical comparison, this would fill a freight train 300 miles long – evaporate approximately 10 million tons of water from ice into steam – or enough energy would be released by burning about thirty million gallons of gasoline.
Prompt Nuclear Radiation:
Associated with the fireball as mentioned before are the production of gamma rays and neutrons during the first few millionths of a second post detonation. Granted the atmosphere weakens the particles, this radiation is lethal out to approximately 1.7 miles. (Well within the first red concentric circle) Within this distance, people close to the hypocenter of the explosion would be rendered unconscious within minutes. But for all intensive purposes – radiations at that close a range to ground zero would be of little consequence – for other by-products of the detonation are far more destructive.
Thermal Radiation:
The thermal pulse is the first major medical effect of a thermonuclear detonation. When the device explodes, a great wave of heat, traveling at the speed of light is emitted from the fireball. This enormous pulse causes direct effects on humans in the form of flash burns to exposed skin. It should be noted that flash burns accounted for nearly 1/3 of fatalities at Hiroshima. The severity of the damage to the tissue is directly related to the amount of heat given to an area in a period of time.
First-degree flash burns occur at 3.2 cal/cm^2 and would be present out to a distance of 18 kilometers. First-degree flash burns are not serious, no tissue destruction occurs. They are characterized by immediate pain, followed by reddening of the skin. Pain and sensitivity continues for some minutes or hours, after which the affected skin returns to normal without scaring of any type.
Moving into 14 kilometers, we have Second degree burns occurring at 6 cal/cm^2. Second degree burns cause damage to the underlying dermal tissue, killing some portion of it. This is characterized by intense pain and redness, which is then followed by blistering. Within a few hours, fluids would begin to collect between the epidermis and damaged tissue. Sufficient tissue remains intact however to regenerate and heal the burned area quickly, usually without scarring. The biggest problem would be broken blisters and their unique ability to provide possible sites for infection.
Closer then 14 kilometers, we have Third degree burns searing at 10 cal/cm^2. Third degree burns cause tissue death all the way through the skin, including the cells required for regenerating skin tissue. The only way a 3rd degree burn can heal is by skin re-growth from the edges, a slow process that usually results in scarring, unless skin grafts are used. Before healing 3rd degree burns present serious risk of infection, and can cause serious fluid loss. A third degree burn over 25% of the body (or more) will typically precipitate shock within minutes, which in of itself requires prompt medical attention.
-
It’s important to realize that even more serious burns are possible, which have been classified as fourth (or even fifth) degree burns. These burns destroy tissue below the skin: muscle, connective tissue etc. They can be caused by thermal radiation exposures substantially in excess of those in the table for 3rd degree burns. Many people close to the hypocenter of the Hiroshima bomb suffered these types of burns. In the immediate vicinity of ground zero the thermal radiation exposure was 100 c/cm^2, some fifteen times the exposure required for 3rd degree burns. This is sufficient to cause exposed flesh to flash into steam, flaying exposed body areas to the bone.
The Shock Front:
By far the most destructive impact of a nuclear detonation on humans and the population is the shock wave. The shock wave is produced at the surface of the fireball in the first fraction of a second after the warhead detonates. The shock wave travels as a sudden increase in air pressure (static pressure) followed by high winds (dynamic pressure). Its primary effects are the collapse of buildings, bridges, and other structures, and the crushing of occupants within, below, or near them.
Within 1.5 miles of ground zero, static overpressures would exceed 20 PSI, which is sufficient to collapse and destroy even the strongest steel and reinforced concrete office buildings. Within three kilometers, almost everyone would be killed, either directly by the blast or by collapsing or flying masonry.
At 4 miles from ground zero, the overpressure would be 5 PSI, or over 180 tons of pressure on the wall of an average two-story home. It should be noted that very high static overpressures on human bodies will produce internal hemorrhaging and fatal impairment of the cardiopulmonary system, but the overwhelming medical impacts are due to the collapse and destruction of buildings and other physical structures.
At 8 kilometers, it’s estimated that the impact effects of the blast would kill about fifty percent of the people. Immediately following the blast wave would be hurricane force winds, first outwards from the explosion and then inward to replace the air that went out.
Crushing injuries of the skull, chest, abdomen and limbs; traumatic amputations; multiple compound fractures of bones; paralyzing lesions of the spinal cord; damage to internal organs, particularly the brain, liver, kidneys; rupture of the lungs and eardrums; multiple severe lacerations. People at a distance, if they realized what had happened when they saw the flash, would have a few seconds to lie down, or even to dive into a ditch before the blast hit.
Secondary and tertiary blast effects:
This is best described as flying objects and flying people, being primarily related to the extremely high dynamic pressures – or winds of velocities exceeding 600 mph near the hypocenter. The range of secondary blast effects is in fact much greater then the primary effects – i.e. collapsed buildings. As far as 13 miles from ground zero, people would be in grave danger of enormous amounts of flying debris consisting of bricks, pieces of masonry, steel, wood, and shards of glass. At a range of almost 15 miles, these objects would have a high probability of severely injuring anyone hit. The overwhelming medical effects would include fractures, penetrating wounds of the chest and abdomen, not to mention serious lacerations.
Another example would be the effects of wind on a human body. As far as 8 miles from ground zero, the wind is sufficient to hurl a 180-pound man against a wall at several times the force of gravity.
Incendiary impacts:
In a word, fires would be the greatest vehicle for human injury and death. The thermal pulse is so intense that paper; dry trees, leaves and grass, debris and wood outside buildings would burst into flames as far as 10 miles away. Within buildings, there would be spontaneous combustion of upholstery, bedding, which are all likely to create self-sustaining fires. To these numerous conflagrations we’d add exploding boilers, overturned furnaces, stoves, broken gas mains, and downed power lines. Fires will directly ignite or spread to gasoline stations, fuel storage depots, large natural gas storage tanks, and industrial chemical stockpiles.
In any large city stricken with a thermonuclear detonation, a mass fire would cause a staggering increase in the number of burns and burns combined with other injuries. With a one-megaton detonation, the circle within which the entire population is counted as fatalities is labeled at 4.3 miles from ground zero.
Mass fires, and especially firestorms, pose a significant threat to the human population. Burst fuel tanks, gas mains, and collapsed buildings would provide more fuel, and it is likely that confluent fires would cause a "firestorm". This is when coalescent fires cause sufficient updraft to form their own wind, blowing inwards from all sides and thereby increasing the intensity of the fire.
The temperature even in basements and bomb shelters rises above lethal levels, and the fire uses all available oxygen. The wind blowing inwards is of gale force, so that even strong uninjured people would have difficulty walking or trying to run outwards away from the fire. Control or containment of these fires---hundreds of them per acre---would be virtually impossible. Water mains would be shattered and pressure non-existent. Streets would be impassable. Fire-fighting crews and equipment would be destroyed or disabled.
Firestorms, pose a threat in addition to their searing temperatures: the generation of large amounts of carbon dioxide and other toxic gas’s. Blast or fallout shelters would provide little protection. The survival of occupants within a shelter would depend critically on the temperature and humidity within the shelter. Unless there is an independent oxygen supply and a venting system for each shelter, toxic gases would be deadly to the occupants. Ordinary shelters would then become crematoria in which occupants would be burned to death and asphyxiated
Delayed Radiation – AKA “Fallout”:
The radiation from a nuclear detonation can be classified into two separate categories: Initial Burst and Residual – the latter being fallout. Depending whether the weapon is detonated as an airburst or ground burst, fallout can be either Initial or Long term.
The initial burst is comprised of gamma rays and neutrons, a dose so intense as only to be lethal at a short range within 1.75 miles of the hypocenter. However, this wouldn’t so much be of a factor since anyone within that ring of destruction would be dead or morbid from the subsequent thermal pulse and passage of the shock front. Only over two miles is radiation exposure from the initial pulse down to a relatively insignificant level, at least compared to the other threats.
If the device were exploded on the ground, early or local fallout would be as a result of soil and rock descending from the fireball’s ascension into the stratosphere. In the case of the city model before you, there is relatively little local fallout – most of it would be global fallout. Airbursts tend to deliver a smaller radiation dose over a longer period of time, to global populations. The direction of fallout is a misnomer since wind patterns make fallout widely scattered and unpredictable – leaving certain areas hot and others untouched.
Radiation Injury:
Most medical estimates of risk are in that of LD/50 or the lethal dose for 50 % of the population exposed. Short-term exposure is rated at 450 REMS with excellent medical care available. That meaning that possible bone marrow transplants would be needed, in addition to whole blood transfusions. Lethal doses for the very young, elderly or those with serious blast and burn injury can be as low as 225 REMS.
Effect If delivered over one week If delivered over one month
Threshold for radiation sickness 150 200
Five percent may die 250 350
Fifty percent may die 450 600
(It doesn’t matter much whether a dose of radiation is received as intense radiation for several hours or at a slower rate over several weeks. What matters is the total accumulated dose.)
-
Combined Injuries:
I have in this project taken you through the traumas that a thermonuclear detonation inflicts on the city and its inhabitants. In a real thermonuclear detonation, 25 to 50 % of the immediate blast survivors might have combined injuries. For the victims of this serious trauma – burns, radiation injury, and other combined injuries to have any chance of survival – they would need complex medical care at the most sophisticated level. Of course, it’s easier to comprehend an idea with something to look at – so please reference the display model in front of you.
http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367
First Concentric Circle
Within the first circle, which has a radius of 1.5 miles, all buildings will be destroyed or seriously damaged. Tunnels and subways will collapse, and all but the strongest bridges will come down. Winds will be in excess of 600 miles per hour. Almost the entire population within this cone – will be killed outright. Blast, Heat, and Radiation will be at lethal strength.
Second Concentric Circle
In the second circle, which has a radius of 2.9 miles from the hypocenter, blast alone will kill 50 percent of the population, and winds will be in excess of 300 miles per hour. The thermal pulse alone would cause Third degree flash burns to exposed skin and spontaneous ignition of clothing.
As a general rule of thumb – within the first two circles, causality figures are estimated at 90 % killed, 10 % seriously injured.
Third Concentric Circle
The third circle goes out to a radius of 4.3 miles, and encompasses an area in which the blast overpressure would be 5 PSI – or over 180 tons of pressure on the wall of an average two story home. Winds would reach 160 miles per hour – all un-reinforced brick and wood-frame houses will be destroyed, and stronger structures severely damaged. Within this circle, the thermal pulse would be great enough to give Third degree flash burns and produce spontaneous ignition of clothing. 50 % of the population would be killed with 35 % severely injured, and only 15 % slightly injured or uninjured.
Fourth Concentric Circle
The fourth circle has a radius of 4.9 miles. At this distance, blast injuries would be less then those with serious burn injuries. 25% to 50% of the survivors would have combined blast and burn injury.
Fifth Concentric Circle
The fifth circle has a radius of 6.3 miles from the hypocenter. Although static overpressures would be down to only 3 PSI with winds of 100 miles per hour, injury from secondary and tertiary blast effects would still be important causes of injury. The thermal pulse would still be sufficient to cause Third degree burns.
Sixth Concentric Circle
With a radius of 8.5 miles, secondary blast effects (flying missiles of brick, masonry, steel, glass, etc) would dominate – causing fractures, penetrating wounds and numerous lacerations. The thermal impact would be sufficient for Second-degree burns.
Beyond 13 miles, 2 % of the population would be killed and 18 % seriously injured. To a distance of 35 miles in all directions - if someone were caught looking at the initial flash and fireball – they would risk possible eye damage. This range for blindness is extended by a factor of 2 if the detonation occurs at night. It should be noted that atmospheric conditions; cloud cover, rain or fog significantly effect the range of the thermal pulse and flash damage to the eyes.
Rescue Problems:
If the bomb exploded squarely over the center of a city, no rescue services within the area of major structural damage would be able to function. All downtown hospitals would be destroyed, and there would be no electricity, water, or telephone communication in the area served by city utilities. Impassable roads would hamper rescue services from the outside world and the central area of severe damage would be inaccessible.
The number of injured in the peripheral area would be so great that emergency services of surrounding cities would be completely overloaded, as would be any surviving suburban hospitals and all the hospitals of neighboring cities. Even to be seen by a doctor and given analgesics, the injured from one city would need to be distributed among all the hospitals of North America.
The destroyed city would be radioactive. Decisions to attempt rescue work would depend first on a survey of the area by a specialist team with appropriate protection, and then on a policy decision as to how much radiation the rescue teams should be permitted. Willingness of the team members and their unions to accept the risk would be the final factor.
Medical Responses:
Medical help of any sort would be virtually non-existent. Medical care, in fact, serves most usefully as an illustration of the impossibility of coping with such a horrific impact.
Civil defense estimates suggest that the ratio of surviving uninjured physicians to the number of seriously injured attack victims being somewhere between 1:350 and 1:1500. Looking back, even this calculation is optimistic.
There are no emergency rooms, no operating rooms, and no diagnostic or therapeutic equipment within reach. There are no blood banks left; drug stocks have been destroyed.
The number of injured, if they could be distributed throughout the hospitals or North America would occupy something like a third of all beds available – no hospital can deal with such an influx of cases. A whole year's supply of blood for transfusion would be needed immediately, and of course is not available in storage nor could it be collected from volunteers in a few days. The injured that reached hospitals would have to be assayed for radioactivity, for the safety of the staff, which would cause a serious bottleneck and delay in most hospitals.
There might be fifty times as many severe burn cases as there are beds available in all North America. Let me remind you – this is if there was only a 1-megaton weapon targeting a single city.
The true scope of the medical impact of a thermonuclear weapon only becomes clear if you turn to a major nationwide attack. If you can imagine the impact of a single 1-Megaton warhead – just try to comprehend 6,000 Megatons aimed simultaneously at military targets, other basic industries and population concentrations of 50,000 or more.
Survival:
In the post-shelter survival period, when fallout has reached an “acceptable” level that allows survivors to emerge for longer times, the problems will change. Tens of thousands of still surviving injured must be nursed. There will be millions of human and animal corpses to be buried or burned. Food will be an overwhelming concern since most of the food stored in shelters would’ve been destroyed. Other food supplies, grain in particular is stored where the population density is least concentrated, on farms. Approximately 99% of the refinery industry would’ve been destroyed; there would be no means to transport the food since there would be no fuel.
Locally food-rich regions may try to fight off any attempt to share their holdings. But throughout this period, the epidemic potential will continue and worsen, probably made more intense by both malnutrition and rampant disease. Since insects are far more resistant to radiation then humans, it is anticipated that cockroaches, mosquitoes, and flies—will multiply unchecked in an environment that is devoid of birds but has ample waste, untreated sewage and human and animal corpses. Trillions of flies will breed in the dead bodies alone.
Disease problems in the survival period may be heavily skewed toward infections. Particularly hazardous epidemics of TB and plague may occur, but outbreaks of flu, amoebic dysentery, rabies, cholera, hepatitis, and bacterial dysentery are also very likely. All of this is in addition to the usual incidence of coronary heart disease, stoke, diabetes, and occurrences or cancer.
Antibiotic supplies would be rapidly depredated. Since the pharmaceutical industry will be almost totally destroyed, there will be little chance of replacement. Diagnostic labs will be non-existent. Vaccines and other immunizing agents will be unavailable.
For physicians and other health care workers, all these scenarios are apocalyptic in scale. It will not only raise practical burdens but the ethical as well. Within the shelter or outside…how are health workers to accomplish making life and death decisions on the basic of radiation exposure estimates that may be inaccurate by several orders of magnitude. Shall the demands for euthanasia be fulfilled as opposed to living maybe 3 or 4 weeks? Should antibiotics or narcotics be reserved for those whose prospect for survival is best?
For those who survived this grotesque destruction of human beings, it would change the meaning of being human. For this, as for the medical effects, there is no cure; there is only prevention.
-
Still no proposals for any way to stop Iran from making nukes though.
But, the thread hasn't died yet.
-
Alex. All of them, do not understand one thing. After USA use a nuke, every country UN member will get a legal right to make north america "bombed back into the stone age". This because USA will be again the only country after WW2 used WMD.
-
^^^^
Pfffffft. You may wanna re-think that 'only country to use wmd after WWII' BS.
-
The only. And it used WMD not inside own country, but against another one.
P.S.
How to post a picture from own computer? I have a nice one. With the map of USA strategic interests.
-
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/
-
so estel is saying the UN will attack north america if north america ever uses a WMD in its own defense, offensively?
estel is also saying that the US has used a WMD against another nation since WW2?
Is he talking about McDonalds?
-
Originally posted by Estel
Alex. All of them, do not understand one thing. After USA use a nuke, every country UN member will get a legal right to make north america "bombed back into the stone age". This because USA will be again the only country after WW2 used WMD.
Ummm.....that is incorrect. The US has not (to my knowledge) used a Nuclear weapon, chemical or biological weapon since WWII.
Otoh, Iraq has used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on it's own people. Also, there are reports of the Vietnamese using chemical weapons on the mountain tribes within the borders of Vietnam.
*edit* added the stuffs below.
Even if the US used a nuclear weapon against Iran the UN would do nothing about it. They would talk about doing something, they might even try economic sanctions. UN military force is out of the question though. The UN just doesnt have the will to enforce a military option.
The only country that might have the intestinal fortitude to retaliate with a nuclear strike on American soil is Russia.
I cant believe we are talking about possibly using a Nuke and being serious about it. This is completely insane.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Still no proposals for any way to stop Iran from making nukes though.
But, the thread hasn't died yet.
Someone else in the other thread suggested assassination. Done properly, this might result in someone other than an anal retentive hardliner from succeeding the current president.
Here's a thought......
What if we convinced some Muslims to suicide bomb the Iranian facilities? Maybe Muslims from a different sect than the majority of Iranian Muslims?
Just a thought :D
-
Originally posted by Estel
Alex. All of them, do not understand one thing. After USA use a nuke, every country UN member will get a legal right to make north america "bombed back into the stone age". This because USA will be again the only country after WW2 used WMD.
The only. And it used WMD not inside own country, but against another one.
:noid
-
the black suburbans pull up outside yet?
Better check again....
-
Originally posted by Yeager
so estel is saying the UN will attack north america if north america ever uses a WMD in its own defense, offensively?
estel is also saying that the US has used a WMD against another nation since WW2?
Is he talking about McDonalds?
Yeager, please, do not substitute my words with your own.
Your mention of selfdefence is very strange. If to follow you, I should shoot anybody who look at me with wrong face mimics.
If you don't know, when and where USA used WMD after WW2..... It's really not my problem. It's a problem of your teacher.
-
estel, dont sweat it bro.
and I do consider McDonalds a WMD...same thing with Marlboro. Sooo....go have a burger and a smoke on me :aok
-
Originally posted by Estel
Yeager, please, do not substitute my words with your own.
Your mention of selfdefence is very strange. If to follow you, I should shoot anybody who look at me with wrong face mimics.
If you don't know, when and where USA used WMD after WW2..... It's really not my problem. It's a problem of your teacher.
I just tryed to Google for American use of WMD's after WWII, got nothing on weapons being used since the drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. /shrug
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Ummm.....that is incorrect. The US has not (to my knowledge) used a Nuclear weapon, chemical or biological weapon since WWII.
But UN Health comittee confirmed using Agent X in Vietnam as WMD usage.
Otoh, Iraq has used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on it's own people. Also, there are reports of the Vietnamese using chemical weapons on the mountain tribes within the borders of Vietnam.
If to Iranian/Iraq war, it was never confirmed. If to use inside country.... It's not your ****ing business. Now we are talking about attacking another country. About Vietnam, look up. USA used WMD in Vietnam war.
Even if the US used a nuclear weapon against Iran the UN would do nothing about it. They would talk about doing something, they might even try economic sanctions. UN military force is out of the question though. The UN just doesnt have the will to enforce a military option.
I especially underlined UN members. All Nuclear Club members are also members of Security Committie of UN. And most of them have Veto rights. We'll return to them later.
As you know, there is precedence law in USA. The single side use of nuclear weapon (and here we mean use in attack purposes) against another nation will cause this precedent. It will untie hands to all who want gain their targets with the single strike. And the only way to stop immediate escalation of force will be response attack or full isolation from the other world. That side will become pariah. Do you want to play such role?
Now returning to UN. I think you understand, that UN can impose an embargo for any country. And in case of the "first strike" there will be no abstentions in voting.
The only country that might have the intestinal fortitude to retaliate with a nuclear strike on American soil is Russia.
I cant believe we are talking about possibly using a Nuke and being serious about it. This is completely insane.
Yes. It's insane. But isn't insane planning strikes against another nation using WMD?
-
Originally posted by Estel
The only. And it used WMD not inside own country, but against another one.
Actually the US nuked the hell out of itself. Google "Nevada Test Range".
The USA also nuked New Mexico and Alaska.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The UN just doesnt have the will to enforce a military option.
Umh you made a small typo! exchange the word "will" with "stupidity" then
everyone will understand it.
:)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually the US nuked the hell out of itself. Google "Nevada Test Range".
The USA also nuked New Mexico and Alaska.
they did it in unpopulated areas
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
they did it in unpopulated areas
That's what the owner of this house thought.
before:
(http://evoria.net/bomb/images/houseb4.jpg)
after:
(http://evoria.net/bomb/images/houseafter.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually the US nuked the hell out of itself. Google "Nevada Test Range".
The USA also nuked New Mexico and Alaska.
It's the own business of USA. We did it too. New Land for example. Or Totsck army training.
-
So your saying using WMD's within your own country is ok?
My God, the horror! I'm going to get the Hague on the line and see if we can have you prosecuted.
Anybody have the phone number for the World Court?
Somebody soon is going to get the joke here...;)
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
they did it in unpopulated areas
Forgot some areas of Alabama and Louisianna. Davy Crocket size explosives in the .05 kt range.
-
United States Nuclear Test Archives (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/index.html)
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So your saying using WMD's within your own country is ok?
We are not discussing about is it good to use WMD inside your own country or not. Anyway it's internal business of the country. We are talking about using WMD against another country.
-
But UN Health comittee confirmed using Agent X in Vietnam as WMD usage.
Agent Orange was a defoliant used in Vietnam. When it was used (iirc), detrimental health effects were considered to be minimal or nonexistant to humans.
Estel when you say the US has used WMD's, I consider that to be a battlefield use. Testing nukes isnt the same imo. Althought why we needed to test so many is beyond me.
Yes. It's insane. But isn't insane planning strikes against another nation using WMD?
I think we would both be surprised and shocked at some of the contingincy (sp) plans both our gov'ts have come up with.
-
Interesting views in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Still no proposals for any way to stop Iran from making nukes though.
But, the thread hasn't died yet.
Not having a solution isn't a prerequisit for debating whether or not a proposed solution is good or bad idea.
I don't know how to stop all crime, but I know that killing everyone is probably a poor solution.
-
Originally posted by Estel
If to Iranian/Iraq war, it was never confirmed. If to use inside country.... It's not your ****ing business. Now we are talking about attacking another country. About Vietnam, look up. USA used WMD in Vietnam war.
According the official Iranian history of the first "gulf war", Iraqs first chemical attack was on 13 January 1981. By the time the west acknowledged Iraq's weaponised use of the combination of mustard gas and nerve agents in 1984, there had been 63 separate gas attacks by the Iraqis.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Not having a solution isn't a prerequisit for debating whether or not a proposed solution is good or bad idea.
I don't know how to stop all crime, but I know that killing everyone is probably a poor solution.
No, but then there are laws that are enforced to prevent/punish crime. We know crime is going to happen and that we will catch some and miss others. This doesn't stop us from trying to catch them all and it doesn't stop us from trying new laws.
What do you propose for Iran?
-
Originally posted by Estel
But UN Health comittee confirmed using Agent X in Vietnam as WMD usage.
WMD my arse
The UN is fugging stupid and your clutching at straws using that argument.
The Yanks wouldn't have used the stuff in Vietnam... and the NZ govt wouldn't have allowed Dow Elanco's NZ subsidiary to supply the two base chemicals of agent orange( 2,4,5-t & 2,4-d ) for use in Vietnam if the long term effects of it were known back then.
And it's not as though it wasn't used here and in other countries either, watermelon loads of it was used in agriculture and forestry right up until the late 1980s when 2,4,5-t was banned in NZ.
But you know what they say... "ignorance is no excuse" So I think NZ should be punished for it's crimes by being kicked out of the UN.
Then we could join something useful, like the Mickey Mouse Club.
Excel
-
Asbestos, DD-T, mercury......
Sometimes ya gotta just say "oops".
-
Originally posted by Excel1
The Yanks wouldn't have used the stuff in Vietnam... and the NZ govt wouldn't have allowed Dow Elanco's NZ subsidiary to supply the two base chemicals of agent orange( 2,4,5-t & 2,4-d ) for use in Vietnam if the long term effects of it were known back then.
And it's not as though it wasn't used here and in other countries either, watermelon loads of it was used in agriculture and forestry right up until the late 1980s when 2,4,5-t was banned in NZ.
But you know what they say... "ignorance is no excuse" So I think NZ should be punished for it's crimes by being kicked out of the UN.
Then we could join something useful, like the Mickey Mouse Club.
Excel
Tell this to the victims. Not to me. For me, this question is closed long time ago.
Let's not go away from topic.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, but then there are laws that are enforced to prevent/punish crime. We know crime is going to happen and that we will catch some and miss others. This doesn't stop us from trying to catch them all and it doesn't stop us from trying new laws.
What do you propose for Iran?
Stop. The punishment as a natural consequence for a crime is undoubtedly.
Do I understand you correct, that you want to punish before crime object and subject appeared? It's not a justice. It's a crime. You wanna catch'em all? No problem. Do it within the bounds of law.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Estel when you say the US has used WMD's, I consider that to be a battlefield use. Testing nukes isnt the same imo. Althought why we needed to test so many is beyond me.
Lookup in the tread. There was only one example with WMD in Vietnam. What do you doing with nukes on your own territory is not interesting for me, at least untill radioactives will fall onto my head with the rain :-)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Not having a solution isn't a prerequisit for debating whether or not a proposed solution is good or bad idea.
I don't know how to stop all crime, but I know that killing everyone is probably a poor solution.
There is saying in Russia: When you have been eaten by somebody, you still have two ways out...
-
Originally posted by Estel
There is saying in Russia: When you have been eaten by somebody, you still have two ways out...
ROFL!!!!
How very..... "russian".
-
Originally posted by Toad
What do you propose for Iran?
It's not my proposal, someone on here or AGW came up with it, but I support it. I would send them the following letter.
"Dear Iran,
Welcome to the Nuclear Club! If an Iranian nuclear device is detonated within or near the boarders of the United States of America and/or our stated allies, we will turn your country into a glass parking lot.
Have a great day,
Thrawn - God/King of the USA."
-
Originally posted by Estel
Lookup in the tread. There was only one example with WMD in Vietnam. What do you doing with nukes on your own territory is not interesting for me, at least untill radioactives will fall onto my head with the rain :-)
I think you misunderstood my statement. Let me try to be more clear.
When you said the US had used WMD since WWII, to my way of thinking that means battlefield/strategic use of the weapons. I didnt realize you were mostly talking about the testing of said weapons ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I think you misunderstood my statement. Let me try to be more clear.
When you said the US had used WMD since WWII, to my way of thinking that means battlefield/strategic use of the weapons. I didnt realize you were mostly talking about the testing of said weapons ;)
The testing wasn't my point. You an scroll up and check. You can begin from here...
Holden McGroin
Actually the US nuked the hell out of itself. Google "Nevada Test Range".
The USA also nuked New Mexico and Alaska.
-
pssssssssssssssssst..
Estel....
Alaska and New Mexico are in the USA.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
pssssssssssssssssst..
Estel....
Alaska and New Mexico are in the USA.
I know. I mean, that idea of to add nuke tests in USA to using WMD wasn't my idea.
-
How do you test a nuke without using it? And you should go back and read my posts carefully. You might see a reference to a JOKE.
-
Originally posted by Estel
The testing wasn't my point. You an scroll up and check. You can begin from here...
Those were tests of nuclear weapons. The tests were performed at various sites. At some point (not sure exactly when) all nuclear tests were done under ground.
Not like we just nuked the crap out of those entire states indiscriminately ;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How do you test a nuke without using it? And you should go back and read my posts carefully. You might see a reference to a JOKE.
You don't need to explain me an obvious things.
I mean, that nuclear tests on own territory is not the same as using WMD against 3-d side country. That is all. How did you test them, underground, airblast or something else dosen't interest me. The discussing of the tests just began after your post.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's not my proposal, someone on here or AGW came up with it, but I support it. I would send them the following letter.
"Dear Iran,
Welcome to the Nuclear Club! If an Iranian nuclear device is detonated within or near the boarders of the United States of America and/or our stated allies, we will turn your country into a glass parking lot.
Have a great day,
Thrawn - God/King of the USA."
That will be a great comfort to those left living in the crater of NYC or DC.. or maybe LA. Both of them.
In the aftermath, there will be the distinct problem of proving it was an Iranian nuclear device. After all, there are reputedly some nuclear devices out there for sale that did not originate in Iran.
So do we nuke the place the nuke originated without regard to proof of who did it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
That will be a great comfort to those left living in the crater of NYC or DC.. or maybe LA. Both of them.
People seem to keep on saying how NYC and LA need to be protected from the terrorists, but they keep voting for the other guy.
Besides, you're exchanging and actual nuclear attack on Iran for a hypothetical attack on the US.
I think that nuking Iran would do more to help terrorist cause than just about anything imaginable. In exchange for what? Delaying Iran for 2-5 years?
In the aftermath, there will be the distinct problem of proving it was an Iranian nuclear device. After all, there are reputedly some nuclear devices out there for sale that did not originate in Iran.
Not according to the source Dowding posted.
-
Not according to the source Dowding posted.
After the nuke has been detonated, how do you test for where it originated from? Not likely to be pieces of the warhead just laying around.
I asked this earlier and got no response. Maybe you cant determine where the nuke originated after detonation?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
After the nuke has been detonated, how do you test for where it originated from? Not likely to be pieces of the warhead just laying around.
I asked this earlier and got no response. Maybe you cant determine where the nuke originated after detonation?
Not all the fissable material is destroyed. Some of it attaches to debris, this is what as known as "fallout".
-
Who is the "other guy" and how would he protect NYC and LA from the terrorists? What would the "other guy" do so differently?
I'm not exchanging an actual nuclear attack on Iran for a hypothetical attack on the US. I haven't posted a single thing in favor of attacking Iran.
As for tracing the source of the fissile material,Iran reportedly has limited amounts of indigenous uranium.
The Russian-supplied nuclear reactors at the southern port of Bushehr are supplied complete with Russian-made fuel.
For the enriched uranium offshoot, Iran needs to obtain thousands of tonnes of uranium ore which it has to semi-process into a powdered form called yellowcake.
Where can they get uranium? There has been speculations that a deal has been struck with a third nuclear developing state such as Pakistan or North Korea.
Now, just exactly how are you going to place blame if the "signature" is of Russian, Chinese, North Korean or Pakistani origin? Do you "return fire" at any possible source or just Iran?
I don't think the tracing is going to be as simple as some would like it to be.
Nuclear Fallout (http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/September_2005/COVER_STORY-_Berkeleys_Big_Bang_Project_.asp)
But some nuclear explosions do leave an isotopic signature, a DNA-like fingerprint that allows forensic physicists such as Naval Postgraduate School weapons systems analyst Bob Harney to possibly determine the origin of the fissile material in the bomb. Nuclear forensics is not a precise science, Harney warns. Post-attack sites are almost certain to be contaminated with unrelated or naturally occurring radioactivity, and there are numerous, highly enriched uranium stashes in the world with unknown signatures.
But there is no question, according to Peter Huessy, a member of the Committee on the Present Danger and consultant to the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., that Russian forensic experts could quickly detect Russian isotopes, and that highly enriched uranium (HEU) from, say, France could readily be differentiated from American HEU.
But, Huessy warns, distinguishing post-blast residues of Pakistani uranium from North Korean uranium would be more challenging, probably impossible. Because neither country is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA inspectors have been unable to collect from their facilities reliable isotope samples that could be compared to post-attack residues. Even if the uranium were traced, the source nation could claim that the material had been stolen.
If it happens, you can bet the ranch EVERYONE that is even suspected of having nukes will be crying "INNOCENT" at the top of their lungs.
-
Originally posted by Estel
Tell this to the victims. Not to me. For me, this question is closed long time ago.
Let's not go away from topic.
No, I'd rather tell you. Your the one spouting UN bs.
Just as long as you understand, agent orange- blue- white etc does not = WMD, despite what the screwballs at the UN say with their revisionist clap trap.
And I dare any UN twerp to come down here and tell me I spent a decade using WMDs on my own property. It would make my year if they did.
Excel
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
(http://www.stickfight.net/images/avatars/PitoFace-ugly.gif)
:noid
-
There's a cure for ugly.
(http://weblog.sindono.com/images/beersex.jpg)
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
United States Nuclear Test Archives (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/index.html)
:eek:
Read "The Plutonium Files". That website is nada, comparatively speaking.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That's what the owner of this house thought.
before:
(http://evoria.net/bomb/images/houseb4.jpg)
after:
(http://evoria.net/bomb/images/houseafter.jpg)
That was built on the "Nevada Test Site" (60 miles North of Vegas) to demonstrate the effects of a blast.
-
Sorry to have ascribed a position to you that you don't take, Toad.
-
that house was ugly anyway.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Not all the fissable material is destroyed. Some of it attaches to debris, this is what as known as "fallout".
I really dont know, so I'm asking....just how much of the fissable material is left over?
-
(http://evoria.net/bomb/images/houseb4.jpg)
(http://evoria.net/bomb/images/houseafter.jpg)
the house was built to make sure the bomb works:lol
-
no ****?
-
Moot,
Yep. That's how they can make the models of destruction at x distance from ground zero. They did some tests to see just how much destruction at given distances would occur. Same thing for the tests using old ships in the bikini atol.
-
Thanks, I meant that Holden's point flew over their heads.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I really dont know, so I'm asking....just how much of the fissable material is left over?
That would depend on the device.